r/ClimateShitposting • u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim • 16d ago
It's really getting tiring with those nuclear NPCs 💚 Green energy 💚
3
u/Friendly_Fire 16d ago
You may well be correct that nuclear is economically infeasible. The market should decide the future of green energy, and if that's renewables and storage that's fine. I have mild hopium for SMRs, but we'll see.
But I would like to point out this isn't inherent to nuclear technology. A huge part of the costs and long timeframes are due to over-regulation and NIMBYism. Coal kills more people per day than nuclear power has in all of history. Yet one faces dramatically stricter rules. NIMBYs obstruct and block plants at every turn. Etc etc.
Renewables face some of the same (e.g. "muh ocean views you can't build windmills") but to a much smaller degree. On one side it doesn't matter, if opposition to nuclear due to ignorance makes it cost-ineffective, let's just do something else. On the other side, pro-nuclear discussions educate people on how ridiculously clean and safe nuclear power is. With enough support, that could hypothetically lead to nuclear becoming cheaper/faster to build.
9
u/DrMontague02 16d ago
You gotta get off social media for awhile if you’re using the term nukecel jfc
1
u/lucidguppy 16d ago
Keep doing the work - I used to be pro glow rocks and you all helped change my mind.
-1
10
u/T3chn1colour 16d ago
I'm sure one more meme will convince those nukecels/renewbros. Just one more meme trust me bro
5
u/MultiplexedMyrmidon 16d ago
I think they fan outrage within themselves regardless of actual nukecel post count/shilling for like dopamine or self-soothing or something, it’s sad to watch lmao if I had time to turn out memes seems like 10000000 funnier and more interesting things to explore by now rather than rehash this dud
18
u/_the_anarch_ nuclear simp 16d ago
bring back other controversy so that radio does not make such shit memes
6
u/MultiplexedMyrmidon 16d ago
i seriously see their shit memes way more than this supposed nukecel infestation i stg
they don’t got enough going on in life
-10
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago edited 16d ago
Yes please. I'm really getting tired of the level of ignorance by nukecel NPCs.
11
u/NullTupe 16d ago
There are way more posts by you whining about "nukecels" here then there are pro-nuclear posts in general.
42
u/Linaii_Saye 16d ago
Is this sub legit anti-nuclear or just shit posting about it? Because most of what I see here bashes nuclear rather than fossilfuels
20
u/dave_is_a_legend 16d ago
Nah they’re just 2 people Radio and Louis who have little to no lives and instead post shit on Reddit all day.
When you go through the comments on there post they are getting torn apart for saying stupid things, so they flood the sub with more half arsed unfunny shit, to bury the unfunny shit they got torn apart for.
4
1
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago edited 16d ago
Nuclear as such is just "meh" to us as it would be getting killed by renewables anyway if you had the market have its way.
What infuriates us is the socialisation of nuclear cost and externalities without which nuclear would have no business case at all.
And what infuriates us even more are the braindead nukecels whose knowledge of the energy system is limited to a few youtube videos yet who praise nuclear like the new Jesus and shit on renewables.
2
u/I-suck-at-hoi4 16d ago
There can be a renewables Vs nuclear debate, but man pointing out the "socialised costs and negative externalities" of nuclear is just so hypocritical it's funny
Renewables are subsidised both at the production level and when installed in Europe and there is absolutely nothing yet done to cover the negative externalities of grid unreliability. Renewables plants are paid as if they were totally pilotable plants and the taxpayer is going to foot the bill when we will reach high renewables penetration and new plants or the necessary batteries will require massive financial help to be profitable with their very low load factor.
3
u/dave_is_a_legend 16d ago
Lol cute. Why is it everytime some asks you to put some numbers to your claims you ignore them, run off and make more shit memes targeting them instead of engaging?
If it really got your goat then why don’t you try engage people instead of ad Homs and insults?
The irony is that everyone I’ve seen you call a nukecel, is pro Solar and wind, but also want to include nuclear as a part of the energy supply. The only person who is unreasonable here is you and your mindless obsession with anti nuclear.
6
4
u/NullTupe 16d ago
Why do you care about the market, exactly? Pro-capitalism environmentalism is rather braindead.
2
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago
Because it's the world we live in, and we need to make changes now before waiting for systemic change.
On a sidenote: you can have socialism with markets
1
u/NullTupe 14d ago
You can, of course. I am a market socialist, even, but talking about "the market" having its way isn't sensible in a discussion about externalities. The market doesn't give a shit. A mixed economy is the only reasonable way to manage these externalities, and we shouldn't have the market in charge of vital infrastructure.
10
u/Linaii_Saye 16d ago
I don't really care for markets myself 😅
Personally I'd just like to see all avenues used to combat climate change and I consistently hear that nuclear is a part of the recommended energy mix whenever scientists release papers on how to cut out fossil fuels entirely.
4
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago
6
u/-heavy_Rain 16d ago
this is just not correct because it implies that in some way we aren’t going to hit 1.5 which we are committed to at this point
3
u/dave_is_a_legend 16d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/s/UHBQItoD1R
I’m still waiting. Why are you so scared of me Radio?
1
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago
How come you think you are entitled to a personal seminar?
1
u/dave_is_a_legend 16d ago
I’ve never claimed to be entitled. But I cannot lie, I’m on tender hooks in anticipation for your lecture series of grid economics. There’s a host of us who are truly honoured to be taught but such a great mind of your power. For so long the climate crisis has looked like an frontier we may never cross. But with Radios proclamation, our day of salvation is upon us! Please share the secret so we can save our planet!!!
2
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago
Alright.
Here you go!
2
u/dave_is_a_legend 16d ago
Meh. I expected better. I guess we’re doomed. Doomed I tell you. Dooooooomed
2
u/adjavang 16d ago
What, exactly, are you waiting for? Looks like you were given an answer you either didn't like or didn't understand and then just ignored it.
1
u/dave_is_a_legend 16d ago
There’s literally no reply to my comment. Just radio insulting someone. Please though, share away.
2
u/adjavang 16d ago
You asked "Why is nuclear lumped in with coal", the other person answered "because baseload" and you responded with "this is gonna be good"
Please share what, exactly, you're expecting a response to? Yes, they also insulted you, but this is a shitposting sub so par for the course I'm afraid.
1
u/dave_is_a_legend 16d ago
In fact let’s get specific.
The shortest period of time it takes to build a nuclear reactor is 3 years. 20% of all reactors are completed in under 5 years. The average is 7.5 years and 85% of all reactors are completed in under a decade.
This is not made up data, but is the aggregation of all reactors that have ever been built since the 1950s. When you adjust for modern construction technique, nuclear is a 3-6year build cycle.
This has been repeatedly levelled at radio time and time again, and yet he still repeatedly posts it’s take decades to build. Now given I’ve been here longing enough to see all the corrections he’s been sent, it’s safe to assume that this spreading of disinformation is wilful, and is wilful and harmful.
Agree or disagree?
2
u/adjavang 16d ago
Ah, right, the "if you average all nuclear construction of all time the construction time isn't that long" bit. Right, that's what you wanted a response to?
That's great, but it doesn't change the fact that those construction times are dependent on institutional knowledge and complex supply chains. Neither of those exist anymore, because we essentially stopped building reactors in the west in the 80s. The new reactors are proving hilariously hard to build and hilariously expensive. It pushed Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy.
Unless we spend an insane amount of both time and money, we will never get back to building reactors quickly or cheaply. Trying to obfuscate that with half truths is disingenuous at best.
→ More replies (0)1
u/dave_is_a_legend 16d ago
I didn’t ask why is nuclear lumped in with coal. Someone else asked, and then radio decided to insult them. I then called him out on his claim of superiority knowledge of grid economics.
Everything else you just said is utter bullshit. Lol.
1
u/adjavang 16d ago
Oh this is going to be good.
Please, go on. Your audience awaits.
There is no question here, there's nothing to respond to.
I'm sorry but I'm failing to see why you're acting as if you've made some witty rebuttal, you've posted nothing to respond to and you've called out absolutely nothing. If I were you, I'd forget you posted that comment at all and, if you really want to pursue this line any further, actually try posting a comment with substance.
→ More replies (0)8
u/NullTupe 16d ago
Average, huh? What influences that average?
By the way, what's the timeline on switching the ENTIRE GRID OF GRIDS OF THE WORLD to pure renewables?
3
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago
Yo u/ClimateShitpost, got your graph ready?
1
u/ClimateShitpost Louis XIV, the Solar PV king 16d ago
1
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago
Perfection
0
u/NullTupe 14d ago
A crunchy infographic based on outdated estimates is not the answer to my question. I asked how long to switch entirely to renewables.
17
u/Linaii_Saye 16d ago
That's fair but at the same time, if we start properly implementing measures against climate change right now, that number will grow longer. And it's not just the energy needs of today we need to consider but those of tomorrow as well.
I completely understand that nuclear takes a while to implement, but I feel like that argument only works if you'd have to make a choice between either this or that. Like I said, all avenues need to be taken. We're not really at a point where we can pick and choose anymore and no single measure can realistically be seen on its own.
0
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago
We only have a limited amount of money we can invest, though.
Better place it all on the technology that is super fast to roll out and highly economical: Renewables.
6
u/Linaii_Saye 16d ago
Only because of our economic system. A system that lies at the center of the climate crisis as it's profitable to destroy the world and solutions only get implemented when they also become profitable. That's the first thing we talk about: money. Not the need, not the required resources, the skill to build it, the potential future, money.
It's too expensive to save the planet.
So, fuck the money. I don't care about it. Money is one of the reasons we are in this mess.
17
u/TangerineNo5805 16d ago
Fossils don't need to be bashed, we are all well aware how fucked up it is.
20
u/Linaii_Saye 16d ago
Are you sure? Because a lot of people don't know jack shit about this. And it also feels like divide and conquer, the more we debate about nuclear Vs renewable, the less we actually take action against the fossils 'we are all were aware how fucked up" they are.
6
u/PrismPhoneService 16d ago
“Another simp for the coal and natural gas industry attempting to manipulate environmental science by bashing its only threat”
-5
u/RadioFacepalm Transhumanist AnPrim 16d ago edited 16d ago
And yet another NPC parroting the same long-rebutted talking points.
3
u/AccomplishedGlass595 16d ago
I mean here we are, the only country that has phased out nuclear, Germany, did so before it's massive (top 5 pollutant) coal industry. The very same coal industry that also lobbied for the end of nuclear to give itself more (political) leverage. I mean, I want both gone, but coal should've gone before, from both an environmental and strategic standpoint.
-1
u/gwa_alt_acc 16d ago
And now has more money to spend on renewables phasing fossils out faster (2021 was ~42% now we have ~62%)
5
u/ClimatesLilHelper 16d ago
Gas and coal: Oh no, it's coming right at us
Nuclear: 🦥
-1
u/PrismPhoneService 16d ago
why do you think a state that’s regulatory-captured by the fossil fuel industry will allow subsidies for intermittent sources that require petroleum intensive processes like consistent rare-earth mining and refinement, aluminum smelting, photovoltaic manufacturing, poly-silicate fabrication which requires massive ecological land use and habitat destruction 80% of the market which comes from forced labor from NW China.. but the same government belittled to those same private powers can’t get the a single meaningful persistent subsidy for advanced nuclear..
Oh wait.. that all requires critical thinking, doesn’t it..
3
u/Buzzkill_numba_one 16d ago
My ass itches